Peering through  

Posted by Emily

A particular political idea that really gets me going is the Border Fence. The 700 mile Border Fence is actually a group of barriers used to prevent the flow of immigration from Mexico to the United States. The barriers include Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Operation Safeguard in Arizona. The cost of the of this fence could be upwards of 49 BILLION dollars over its 25-year lifespan. McCain has voted for this fence, as has Obama (as noticed by Tommy- thanks for the comment!).
I firmly believe that the fence is NOT the answer to deter illegal immigration and here's why:

1. Financially- instead of spending all this money on an ineffective wall, let's instead spend the taxpayer's money on increased personnel and technology at the border. More border patrol officers and better technological equipment could do the job (keeping illegals out of the United States) adequately.
2. Environmentally- this border fence is proposed to go across desert, mountain, river, and wetland terrains. These terrains are valuable migratory paths for many species of animals including jaguars, black bears, and the Sonora Pronghorn. This fence could possibly destroy the natural ecosystems that we share with these animals.
3. Farming Communities-the wall will close off water sources to many American farmers and ranchers who need access to water to sustain their farms.
4. Effectiveness- who's to say this wall will actually deter immigrants from crossing the border? It's not difficult to scale fences or simply find another, less safe, route onto American soil.

The final problem I have is more of a question:
Could the border fence oppose the La Paz Agreement, signed in 1983 between the US and Mexico? The La Paz agreement is a pact to "protect, conserve, and improve" the environment of Mexico and the US. Could this border fence, which will destroy the region's environment, really be in complete contradiction to the original pact? I vote yes.

That's all for tonight. Until next time...

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 7:10 PM . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .

3 comments

Tommy  

Emily,

If America is going to waste forty-nine billion dollars on a fence, then the fence should last much longer than twenty-five years. If the fence lasts only twenty-five years, then America will waste just as much money to replace that fence after its lifespan with another fence. Technology may improve to make border fences last longer, but that advancement would only increase the cost. Speaking of technology, though, I have heard that some advanced, motion-sensing, expensive technology on the border is far too sensitive, and will mistake even rain for illegal immigrants. If this story is true, how can America work to correct this problem?

Technology, though, appears to be a much better choice than border fences. Not only does technology avoid interfering with animal migration routes, but also keeps water lines intact. Farmers need as much water as possible, and any detriment to that resource is unacceptable. However, I thought water lines ran underground. Could water lines run through the fence without being obstructed?

Finally, this border fence may be a contradiction with the La Paz Agreement, but did the border fence legally invalidate the agreement?

Tommy

October 8, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Emily  

Tommy,
The advancement of technology really just takes time. Technology always gets better the longer it's around. But who's to say sensitive motion sensors are a bad thing? It's better to have a motion sensor freak out about everything than never notice anything at all.
Water lines could be run through the fence as long as they are dug deep enough. But again, it would just cost more money as opposed to farmers just being able to get their water directly from the Rio Grande.
The border fence has has not invalidated the La Paz agreement directly, but it is in serious contradiction to the idea posed in it. "Although the spirit of the La Paz Agreement and other binational accords suggests that notification should take place when projects on one side of the border likely will have environmental impacts on the other country, there is no routine process for this communication
to take place". (http://www.ine.gob.mx/publicaciones/libros/519/cap1.pdf)
Thanks for the comment!
-Emily

October 8, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Caitlin  

Emily,
I agree with you that the border fence would clash with the La paz agreement, since its purpose is to "protect, conserve, and improve the environment of Mexico and the US", and the fence could harm the environment. My only question is how is equipment and hiring more officers going to be any more effective than a fence? There is no way that officers can guard every part of the border and unless technology can somehow stop immigrants from coming in, I don't see how it can help either. Are there any other options that might be more efficient than the fence? Even if there are not I don't believe that immigration is a big enough problem that we should spend almost 50 billion dollars on it.

October 8, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Post a Comment